R. H. BrownYucaipa, California

When two individuals have distinct disagreement regarding the
interpretation of significant data, it is apparent that at least one of
them is in error. Age determinations based on radioisotope data are
commonly considered to be in substantive agreement with geological age
criteria. The massive literature survey made by John Woodmorappe demonstrates
that in actuality there is often major disagreement, and that the presumed
mutually supportive relationship can be demonstrated only with carefully
selected data. His compilation of 494 references, mostly from recent
professional geologic publications, is a major contribution to an
understanding of the relationships between real time and radioisotope ratios.
One of the principal values of this book is the impressive examples in
Chapter 3 of disagreement between radioisotope age and corresponding
geological age assignment. The following chapters contain additional
examples. The reader should keep in mind that such a list, however long, is
not proof that daughter/parent isotope ratios are never time significant.
The statement made on page v in the Foreward by Henry M. Morris that "the
various assumptions on which radioactive dating techniques are based are
all wrong" (emphasis mine) is apt to cause many potential readers who have
a foundation knowledge in physics or geochemistry to lay aside the book
without discovering its many significant contributions. In stating that
"John Woodmorappe is very positive (and sometimes rather abrasive ...)"
(p vi), Dr. Morris gently prepares the reader for a feature of the book that
diminishes the quality of recognition it would receive otherwise.
In his Introduction the author unfortunately makes what may be taken
as a clearly false statement: "no one has performed an overall review of
isotope dating" (p vii). Actually, several excellent treatments are
available.1 Evidently he intended to say "no one [from the viewpoint
of biblical chronology]."
Another statement that may foster an initial prejudicial attitude toward
the book is located on the first page of Chapter 1: "... very little
isotopic-dating work is experimental in nature." It is unfortunate that a more
appropriate wording was not used, such as: "Any radioisotope age/date
is derived from a theoretical interpretation, as well as the basic
experimental data."
The book fully develops the insight expressed on p 83b, "Uniformitarian
geochronology is indefinitely adaptable to every conceivable possibility!";
and on p 85a, "... the uniformitarian geochronologist cannot lose, no matter
what turns up." A radioisotope age that agrees with geological expectations
is readily accepted as confirmation and quantification of the designated age.
Radioisotope ages that are significantly greater (or less) than conformable with
geological assignment are reasonably explainable on the basis of postulated parent
loss and/or daughter gain (or parent gain and/or daughter loss), as a result of
solution penetration and/or heating in one or more episodes since the initial
formation of the mineral.
The author does not call attention to the equal capability of a biblically
compatible geochronology. Radioisotope ages may be reasonably explained on the
basis of either uniformitarian geology or young-earth biblical geology. The
chemical and thermal modifications of isotope ratios necessary for a reasonable
explanation of the data may be postulated as having occurred during an unspecified
time between primordial creation of matter and creation of organic life on planet
Earth, as allowed by the definition for earth given in Genesis 1:10; during, the
third day of Creation Week; and during, as well as subsequent to, the Flood
episode of Genesis 6-8. A choice between an "old-earth" concept and a
"young-earth" concept must be made on a basis other than success in the
development of a reasonable explanation for radioisotope daughter/parent ratios.
When the physical measurement of a radioisotope half-life (disintegration rate)
has a large range of uncertainty, it is only reasonable for geochronologists to
use the boundary value that produces radioisotope ages most closely in accord with
expectations based on geologic criteria. The relatively few cases in which the
investigator has a significant option for selection of a half-life value do not
justify a categorical statement such as found on p 95a: "the decay constants
used in isotopic-dating systems are tainted by past and present practice which
raise questions about their objectivity." A statement such as this
unfortunately raises a question concerning the objectivity of the author. We
should recognize that significant results are often obtained from nonobjective
research.
Figure 30 on p 82 presents 96 age determinations for the three U-Pb methods on
32 individual zircon grains from the same igneous rock. There is no specification
as to whether these data are taken from the geochemical literature, or are
hypothetical values chosen to illustrate the concepts of concordance and
open-system resetting. The unlikelihood of 96 radiometric age determinations on
one rock sample indicates that the data probably are fictitious. This consideration
does not diminish the tutorial value of Figure 30.
Chapter 9 contains many problems for comprehension by the readership to whom
the book is directed. There is need for an explanation of what the author intends
by a "lack of regional standardization of isotope dates" (p 87a). Lack
of a standardized radioisotope age to represent each geologic region? Diversity
rather than uniformity of the radioisotope age determinations for samples from a
geologic region?
The data base for Figure 33 should be specified. All published dates? What
basis for selection of the dates represented? And what are "lists (D) and
(H)", and "lists (B) and (C)"? Figure 33 has little meaning if
these terms are not readily understandable from the text. Why is Figure 33(a)
described as log-normal, while 33(b) is represented as log-linear, and the
associated text indicates log-linear?
According to the estimates presented in Chapter 9, randomly selected
radioisotope ages will be in agreement within precision of measurement in 2.1% of
pair selections, and 0.03% of triplet selections. These estimates indicate the
significance of agreement between two or more methods of radioisotope age
determination on the same sample. For their derivation to be understandable to the
target readers, this section must be extensively revised and elaborated.
The present (first) edition of The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods
will appeal mostly to individuals who are seeking assurance for a previous
commitment to a biblical young-earth viewpoint. Several features will impede
due recognition by the scientific community-at-large of the significant
contributions to radioisotope science that are presented in this book. In
addition to the problems with Chapter 9 noted above, the myth versus
reality/fact format used throughout the book will inhibit its consideration
as a scientific treatise. The range of potential readers who might respond
favorably would be increased by using a simple statement of topic as an
introduction to each section.
Derogatory categorization of individuals who do not have the same viewpoint as
does the author diminish the quality and effectiveness the book should have. For
example: on p 96b, "Torture the data long enough, and it will say whatever
you want. And if one 'torture technique' does not produce the desired result, try
another"; and on p 35b,

Having been exposed in their earlier-made blustery claims about the wonderful
reliability of isotopic dating, [apologists for isotope dating] now give us a song
and dance about the fact that they are the ones who have discovered the flaws in
these dating methods.

Who else would have obtained the data necessary for more detailed
understanding? It is highly important for biblical creationists to recognize that
individuals who hold diverse viewpoints may be just as honest and professional in
reaching their conclusions as we consider ourselves to be.
At the beginning of this review it was noted that where substantive conflict
exists between viewpoints/conclusions A and B, one of them must be incorrect.
Woodmorappe has amply demonstrated that geologic age assignments are often in
conflict with corresponding radiometric age determinations. In such cases one or
the other must be incorrect. A second possibility is that both are incorrect.
Woodmorappe concludes Chapter 10 with a call to disregard both fossil sequence and
radioisotope age as having extended time significance (p 94b). The book of Genesis
provides a basis for a third explanation which allows basic geological principles
for interpretation of sequence and circumstances of fossil deposit, and also
allows radioisotope data to indicate source material characteristics and
circumstances for open-system modification since initial creation.
I urge every reader of this review to check my comments against his/her
own reading of the full 96 pages of text. For a broad-based perspective on
the book, I highly recommend the excellent review by Michael J. Oard on p 19-22 in Vol. 14 (no. 1, 2000) of
Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal
(tjeditors@AnswersinGenesis.com).